CAUT is soliciting nominations for the Donald C. Savage Award. The Donald C. Savage Award was established in 1997 in honour of Donald C. Savage, Executive Director of CAUT 1972-1997, and was instituted to honour and to recognize outstanding achievements in the promotion of collective bargaining in Canadian universities and colleges.

Criteria

Candidates need not be a member of the academic community but the results of their contribution(s) must have benefitted the cause of collective bargaining in the post-secondary sector;

The outstanding quality of the contribution may derive from the result of a single project or activity, or the accumulation of efforts through consistent involvement over a long period of time in supporting the cause of collective bargaining in the post-secondary sector; and

Candidates’ contributions which have had national implications for the collective bargaining process may have been focused locally (in a single university or college), provincially, regionally, nationally, or a combination of these.

Nominations for the award may be submitted by academic staff associations, collective bargaining committees, or any other interested parties. The deadline for nominations is February 1, 2016. The nomination form and procedures are available on the CAUT website. Nominations will be reviewed by CAUT’s Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee and recommendations will be forwarded to CAUT Council.The number and frequency of awards will be as the Committee and CAUT Council deem appropriate.

CAUT is soliciting nominations for the CAUT Equity Award. The CAUT Equity Award was established in 2010 to recognize academic staff who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to promoting equity within post-secondary education in Canada.

Criteria

The candidate must be an academic staff member at a Canadian post-secondary institution;

While the candidate’s contribution may have been focused locally (in a single university or college), provincially, regionally, or nationally, these contributions must have had a significant impact on the advancement of equity within post-secondary education; and

The candidate’s contribution may derive from the result of a single project or activity, or the accumulation of efforts through consistent involvement over a long period of time.

Nominations for the award may be submitted by academic staff associations, equity committees, caucuses or any other interested parties. The deadline for nominations is February 1, 2016. The nomination form and procedures are available on the CAUT website. Nominations will be reviewed by CAUT’s Equity Committee and recommendations will be forwarded to CAUT Council. The number and frequency of awards will be as the Committee and CAUT Council deem appropriate.

(Ottawa – December 14, 2015) The Canadian Association of University Teachers supports Professor Root Gorelick’s decision to refuse to sign an agreement that would prevent him from speaking publicly about open sessions of Carleton University board meetings.

“We applaud and support Professor Gorelick’s principled decision to resist pressure to suppress his academic freedom and free speech rights,” said CAUT executive director David Robinson. “Carleton’s policy for its board of governors is egregious and runs contrary to the principles of openness and transparency needed for good governance at a public institution.”

Carleton’s Statement of General Duties, Fiduciary Responsibilities, and Conflict of Interest imposes a lifetime ban on board members from reporting or commenting on public sessions of board meetings. Professor Gorelick is a faculty representative of the Board of Governors, elected by academic staff at Carleton University. He frequently blogs about the proceedings of the meetings, but would be restricted from continuing to do so if he signed the revised statement. He was given until December 14, 2015 to decide whether he would sign the agreement.

“This policy has the effect of imposing a gag order on Professor Gorelick and could be seen as a direct retaliation against him for the content of his public blog,” said Robinson, “Such tactics have no place in a post-secondary institution where open discussion and free debate are its cornerstone.”

On November 28, at CAUT’s Council meeting, a motion was unanimously passed to condemn Carleton’s Board of Governors for enacting this policy and to initiate the censure process unless it is reversed.

Overall, the report is an interesting and comprehensive summary of the consultations. It includes some promising areas of policy development – such as better data on higher education in Ontario – while also proposing other policy directions that would be harmful to the province’s universities, like performance-based funding. The document also tends to present the financial challenges facing the sector as the result of rising costs, rather than the Government of Ontario’s persistent under-funding of universities.

The report stops short of offering specific recommendations. Instead, it offers what Executive Lead Sue Herbert calls “strategic directions.” Key among these directions is the idea that MTCU adopt an “outcomes-based lens” for all of its investments in the university sector. This does not necessarily mean funding would be tied to performance metrics—instead, the government should carefully design its objectives and desired outcomes from universities, and fund according to these sector goals. Nevertheless, performance-based funding is highlighted as a direction that should be pursued in the long-term. Based on the preponderance of existing evidence, OCUFA will continue to assert that performance funding is an ineffective mechanism for improving educational quality. In fact, it may actually harm students’ learning experience. Any system of funding that divides universities into winners and losers would have severe consequences for faculty and students at institutions lumped into the latter category.

The report also suggests that coherent, centralized, and accessible data on Ontario’s higher education system is needed to inform discussions around quality improvement, and to increase accountability and transparency to stakeholders and the public. OCUFA endorses this proposal, as it is consistent with one of our key recommendations to the Review. However, the new data system should not be created to facilitate a performance funding regime. We welcome any opportunity to work with government to create a data system that is open, robust, and operated in collaboration with sector stakeholders.

Other encouraging aspects of the report include recognition of sector-wide agreement that funding should be fair and equitable to protect against variation in quality across institutions, as well as predictable and stable to facilitate long-term planning. The paper also recognizes that throughout the consultation process the Review team heard that good jobs on university campuses contribute to a high-quality student experience.

Throughout the consultation process, stakeholders were told that the Review would only look at the funding model itself, and broader questions of funding levels, tuition fees, and institutional expenditure would not be addressed. It is therefore disappointing that the Review dedicates so much space to predictable administrator concerns about the costs of collective bargaining, without acknowledging Ontario’s woefully low levels of per-student public funding. Both of these issues were deemed out of scope at the outset, but it appears one was more out of scope than the other.

The paper also makes a factual error in suggesting that tenure and progress-through-the-ranks (PTR) are a unique compensation feature of universities. Many sectors use PTR systems, and tenure-like provisions exist in other public services, not the least of which is the K-12 education sector.

OCUFA will be conducting a thorough review of the report over the coming weeks, and will make a comprehensive analysis available to our members and to government. We anticipate completing this project in early 2016.

Going forward, OCUFA’s understanding is that MTCU staff will now be tasked with considering the report’s strategic directions, developing a new funding model, and implementing it over the coming years. Our expectation is that this work will continue to embrace a spirit of consultation and collaboration, and that sector stakeholders will be given a central role in the development of a new funding model. OCUFA plans to contribute to this process at every opportunity, and looks forward to continued engagement with the government on this important project.

The Review, which concludes with the release of this report, was intended to examine potential changes to the university funding model in Ontario, to serve four broad government goals:

Enhancing quality and improving the overall student experience;

Supporting the existing differentiation process;

Addressing financial sustainability; and

Increasing transparency and accountability.

OCUFA was an active participant in the consultations, attending a variety of symposia, briefings, and one-on-one meetings with Sue Herbert. To frame the conversation from a faculty perspective, we released The Funding Formula Review Handbook. We also made a formal written submission to the Review, outlining the need to build upon existing strengths while addressing weaknesses as we modernize the funding model.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to get in touch. We would be particularly interested in hearing your own faculty association’s perspective and analysis on the report to inform our own work in the coming weeks. You can reach me at 416 979 2117 x232 or at [email protected], or Executive Director Mark Rosenfeld at x229 or [email protected]

Today, the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities (MTCU) released the final report of the Ontario University Funding Model Review. The full report and report summary are attached to this email, and can also be downloaded here.

Overall, the report is an interesting and comprehensive summary of the consultations. It includes some promising areas of policy development – such as better data on higher education in Ontario – while also proposing other policy directions that would be harmful to the province’s universities, like performance-based funding. The document also tends to present the financial challenges facing the sector as the result of rising costs, rather than the Government of Ontario’s persistent under-funding of universities.

The report stops short of offering specific recommendations. Instead, it offers what Executive Lead Sue Herbert calls “strategic directions.” Key among these directions is the idea that MTCU adopt an “outcomes-based lens” for all of its investments in the university sector. This does not necessarily mean funding would be tied to performance metrics—instead, the government should carefully design its objectives and desired outcomes from universities, and fund according to these sector goals. Nevertheless, performance-based funding is highlighted as a direction that should be pursued in the long-term. Based on the preponderance of existing evidence, OCUFA will continue to assert that performance funding is an ineffective mechanism for improving educational quality. In fact, it may actually harm students’ learning experience. Any system of funding that divides universities into winners and losers would have severe consequences for faculty and students at institutions lumped into the latter category.

The report also suggests that coherent, centralized, and accessible data on Ontario’s higher education system is needed to inform discussions around quality improvement, and to increase accountability and transparency to stakeholders and the public. OCUFA endorses this proposal, as it is consistent with one of our key recommendations to the Review. However, the new data system should not be created to facilitate a performance funding regime. We welcome any opportunity to work with government to create a data system that is open, robust, and operated in collaboration with sector stakeholders.

Other encouraging aspects of the report include recognition of sector-wide agreement that funding should be fair and equitable to protect against variation in quality across institutions, as well as predictable and stable to facilitate long-term planning. The paper also recognizes that throughout the consultation process the Review team heard that good jobs on university campuses contribute to a high-quality student experience.

Throughout the consultation process, stakeholders were told that the Review would only look at the funding model itself, and broader questions of funding levels, tuition fees, and institutional expenditure would not be addressed. It is therefore disappointing that the Review dedicates so much space to predictable administrator concerns about the costs of collective bargaining, without acknowledging Ontario’s woefully low levels of per-student public funding. Both of these issues were deemed out of scope at the outset, but it appears one was more out of scope than the other.

The paper also makes a factual error in suggesting that tenure and progress-through-the-ranks (PTR) are a unique compensation feature of universities. Many sectors use PTR systems, and tenure-like provisions exist in other public services, not the least of which is the K-12 education sector.

OCUFA will be conducting a thorough review of the report over the coming weeks, and will make a comprehensive analysis available to our members and to government. We anticipate completing this project in early 2016.

Going forward, OCUFA’s understanding is that MTCU staff will now be tasked with considering the report’s strategic directions, developing a new funding model, and implementing it over the coming years. Our expectation is that this work will continue to embrace a spirit of consultation and collaboration, and that sector stakeholders will be given a central role in the development of a new funding model. OCUFA plans to contribute to this process at every opportunity, and looks forward to continued engagement with the government on this important project.

The Review, which concludes with the release of this report, was intended to examine potential changes to the university funding model in Ontario, to serve four broad government goals:

Enhancing quality and improving the overall student experience;

Supporting the existing differentiation process;

Addressing financial sustainability; and

Increasing transparency and accountability.

OCUFA was an active participant in the consultations, attending a variety of symposia, briefings, and one-on-one meetings with Sue Herbert. To frame the conversation from a faculty perspective, we released The Funding Formula Review Handbook. We also made a formal written submission to the Review, outlining the need to build upon existing strengths while addressing weaknesses as we modernize the funding model.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to get in touch. We would be particularly interested in hearing your own faculty association’s perspective and analysis on the report to inform our own work in the coming weeks. You can reach me at 416 979 2117 x232 or at [email protected], or Executive Director Mark Rosenfeld at x229 or [email protected]

Nominations are being actively sought for election to the CAUT Executive Committee, namely:

President

Vice-President

Treasurer

Chair of the Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee

Chair of the Librarians’ and Archivists’ Committee

Co-Chair of the Equity Committee (1)

Representative-at-large (Quebec)

Representative-at-large (Aboriginal)

Representative-at-large (Francophone)

Two Representatives-at-large (General)

Deadline date for nominations to all positions: March 1, 2016.Elections will take place at the CAUT Council meeting in Ottawa April 28 – May 1, 2016.

Nominations of members of marginalized groups are encouraged, including but not limited to Aboriginal peoples; women; racialized academic staff; academic staff with disabilities; and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, queer, and two-spirited academic staff.

The nomination procedures, description of positions, terms of office and CAUT release time policy outlined below are also available on the CAUT website.

Responsible for guiding the affairs of the Association between meetings of Council and for ensuring that policies approved by Council are implemented. A nominee for the position of President should have had considerable experience in academic staff association affairs at the local level.

Vice-President

Responsible for assisting the President with his or her responsibilities and undertaking other duties as decided by the Executive Committee.

Treasurer

Responsible for the preparation of draft budgets and financial statements and for ensuring that proper controls remain in place to ensure the financial integrity of the Association.

Chair of theCollective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee

Responsible for chairing the Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee and undertaking other duties as decided by the Officers and Executive Committee. A nominee for the position of chair of the CBEB Committee should have considerable experience in collective bargaining and shall normally have served at least one year on the committee.

Chair of the Librarians’ and Archivists’ Committee

Responsible for chairing the Librarians’ and Archivists’ Committee and undertaking other duties as decided by the Officers and Executive Committee. A nominee for the position of chair of the Librarians’ and Archivists’ Committee should have considerable experience representing the interests of librarians and archivists, should have knowledge of relevant policy matters, and shall normally have served at least one year on the committee.

Co-Chair of the Equity Committee (1)

Responsible for co-chairing the Equity Committee and undertaking other duties as decided by the Officers and Executive Committee. A nominee for the position of co-chair of the Equity Committee should have considerable experience in matters of equity. At least one of the co-chairs must be a woman.

Representative-at-large (Quebec)

Responsible for undertaking duties as decided by the Officers and the Executive Committee.

Representative-at-large (Aboriginal)

Responsible for undertaking duties as decided by the Officers and the Executive Committee. Will serve as the Executive liaison to the Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education Working Group.

Representative-at-large (Francophone)

Responsible for undertaking duties as decided by the Officers and the Executive Committee. Will serve as the Executive liaison to the Executive’s Francophone Committee.

Representatives-at-large (General) — 2 positions

Responsible for undertaking duties as decided by the Officers and the Executive Committee.

Term of Office

President — one year

Vice-President — one year

Treasurer — two years

Chair, Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee — two years

We are asking member associations for assistance in identifying potential members for CAUT’s standing committees. We welcome names of CAUT individual affiliated or associate members you feel would be interested and who would bring expertise to the work of these committees. The composition, function, terms and procedures for selection of committee members can be found on the CAUT Website under each standing committee page. Committee vacancies will also be advertised in the CAUT Bulletin.

The deadline for nominations for members of CAUT Standing Committees is February 1, 2016.

We welcome recommendations of members of marginalized groups. These groups include but are not limited to Aboriginal peoples; women; racialized academic staff; academic staff with disabilities; and lesbian, gay, transgendered, queer and two-spirited academic staff.

Committee Vacancies

Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (two vacancies)

Members of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee should have had considerable involvement in and knowledge about academic freedom. They must be sympathetic to, and have had experience in the defence of academic freedom and tenure, and they should be willing and available to dedicate considerable time to the work of the Committee between meetings, including promotion of academic freedom, drafting of documents, and other related activities.

Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee (two or three vacancies, dependent on whether an incumbent member of the committee is elected Chair by Council)

Members of the Collective Bargaining and Economic Benefits Committee should have demonstrated experience in collective bargaining. They should be able to commit time between meetings to the work of the committee, including drafting of model clauses, development of policy statements and other related activities.

Contract Academic Staff Committee (two vacancies)

Six of the eight members of the Contract Academic Staff Committee are from the six CAUT member associations with the largest CAS membership. The other two are a representative from small associations and a representative from medium-size associations. Both of those positions are vacant in 2016.

Equity Committee (up to one, dependent on whether an incumbent member of the committee is elected Chair by Council)

The Equity Committee is composed of two members of the following groups: Aboriginal academic staff; academic staff with disabilities; lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, queer and two-spirited academic staff; racialized academic staff; and women academic staff. Members of the Equity Committee should have considerable experience in and commitment to the advancement of equity. Members should be willing and available to dedicate significant time between meetings to the work of the Committee, including drafting and editing policy documents, preparing advice for the Executive and Council, and other related activities.

Librarians’ and Archivists’ Committee (one or two vacancies, dependent on whether an incumbent member of the committee is elected Chair by Council)

Members of the Librarians’ and Archivists’ Committeeshould have considerable experience and knowledge of the professional interests and academic concerns of librarians and archivists at Canadian post-secondary institutions. They ought to be aware of policy matters pertaining to academic rights and working conditions of academic librarians and archivists. Members should be willing and available to dedicate significant time between meetings to the work of the Committee, including the conference planning, drafting or editing documents, responding to enquiries and other related activities.

A list of the current members of CAUT standing committees is attached for your information.

Following on the heels of last year’s successful end of term venting/strategizing/solidarity session, I invite you to attend this year’s teaching-related session entitled: “Experiments in Teaching While Feminist.” This session will provide an opportunity to talk about the challenges of teaching as a feminist, teaching feminist content, or even identifying as a woman who teaches. I’m hoping we can populate of list of tactics that each of us uses to resist these challenges, to engage in self-care, and to support students in learning about gender. Plus, free lunch. RSVP.